Climate Change Debunked : finally! Weather Proofing Debate!

A way of wasting time.

Arguments about Scientific Data, all of which can and is being interpreted, each according to her or his agenda, or simply reported as it is, tend to go round and round. And round and round. Yada. Yada. Yada.

However, from my perspective, how I see things, there's a few vital assumptions, and some foundational premises, that all involved in this riveting worldwide debate, concerning Climate Change, are not included in the data discussed. Ones that are assumed, (and incorrect - they are beliefs ) and ones that are ignored (and are correct - they are how  it is).

I'd like to share them with you. In a  kind of non-linear rambling sort of fashion.

Let's Get Real!

It's not merely the effect of CO2 emissions as a result of Industrial Society, and the potential consequences as an effect upon the environment : it 's the combined effect of all the changes Industrial Society has made to the environment, habitat, to the way things live and interact. - that is the real for me.

If there is a problem, that's a huge part of the problem.

The element of excessive release of CO2 that is altering the heat dynamics of our atmosphere lives within that context.

And that is something that human beings can change, if we really want to. If we cared enough to. I think the vast majority of ordinary people want to change this. Those who hold power, vast wealth and who control and dominate the extractive industries will not want to change much of it.. They will tinker at the edges at best. Deny the problem and exacerbate it at worst.

Let me look at it another way. If, for example there was an asteroid capable of hitting the Earth and creating a 200 year permanent winter, that would not be a problem of culture, rather a problem for humanity. That would be purely a natural catastrophic event, part of the processes of life. That's just life. It's not a problem. That creatures eat creatures is not a problem.  It's how natural life works.

Problems caused by cultures can be solved. Life is what it is.

For example it is demonstrably true that all in biology-nature the combined activity of all creatures improves the habitat for all creature and organisms. Everything eats, everything is eaten and the poop is always food for more life.

That include us humans, as one of trillions of natural inhabitants of earth. Yet, as a culture this does not happen The outputs of this culture are largely toxic. We are a biological anomaly. Unique, not in being human, but instead in being gross polluters. Truly unique. 

That's a problem. This culture - Industrialised Militarised Competing Powers Culture - is out of step with healthy biology and natural balance. 

By choice.

To compartmentalise the components of a whole, each as whole in and of themselves is one of the bottle necks in this discourse concerning climate change and societal change. I say this because the only reason we are discussing climate change is because it is being driven by a political and emotive agenda that demands 'changes' in our society. Those changes do not appear to include stopping war, stopping all toxic production, making profound changes to our 'extractive' processes so that they return nutrients to the environment at every stage. They do not appear to include re-establishing the fundamental of nature : each organism has a direct relationship to it's land base, food base and each organism improves the habitat for all life.

Furthermore the discussions around climate change appear to me to refuse to recognise that Industrial Society is extremely vulnerable due to it's inability to adapt to the way nature works. And that this arises from a  conditioned, and unfounded, fear of the wild. That is the true source of this cultural insecurity. Christianity and others promote this fear of the wild.

Hubris

This, unfortunately, arises from hubris. The fallacies and ideas concerning mankind's Superiority, Manifest Destiny, Chosen Peoples, Higher 'Intelligence' etc., etc., are part of this delusion, one that is rooted in the God Delusion. "God made man in His Image." Merely a delusional belief.

As is the debate about 'climate change' and societal change that excludes war and the urge to power as a factor in this predicament we are in. They cannot be discussed separately. They are entwined.

The real predicament is merely that this Civilisation will not stand, will not survive, never mind thrive. It is not sustainable. The immense energy and power of nature to nurture is far, far greater than anything we can muster to destroy it. Co-operation and Improving the Habitat for all life is the way of Nature. Competition and Destroying the Habitat  for Profit is the way of Industrial Society. These processes are so not compatible.

Humility

Humility, and a willingness to put all the evidence, the data on the table, openly, honestly. and then we can talk about the appropriate changes to make to rebalance. The answers are all around us in Nature. We have to cease projecting what we think we know onto what is and see what is as it really is.

That data must by necessity include a fullest inventory, a telling of the cost to all life forms on Earth of the way of Industrial Society, a full accounting of the abuse we have meted, and continue to mete out to each other.

It must include a full accounting of the toxicity we have introduced, to oceans, rivers, lakes, streams, aquifers, forests, plains, swamps, bogs, and all their inhabitants and of course our own bodies.

That data must by necessity include a fullest inventory, a telling of the known natural world, her processes and inter-relationships, (her because I see Earth as my Mother) from the microbial to the continental, drawing on all traditions that have observed nature for very long periods of times, across several tens of generations, as much as our best scientific examinations. 

The data must show a full account of the vested interests that hold Industrial Civilisation in such a deathly grip of denial.

It must show the methods and extent to which power is bent against life, on behalf of those who dominate. It must show a full audit of the amassed wealth on one hand and the resultant poverty on the other and  that 'balance' be compared to the potential abundance that Earth may bestow in her healthiest state, for all life.

Abundance is when poverty is unknown, nor can hoarded wealth or ring-fenced 'resources' or denying nutrients be countenanced.

The data must include the sensing's, the dreams and observations of our children, our youth, and our elders as much as the admonitions of activists, politicians, pastors and so-called teachers.

These are the data to place the Climate Change discussions in it's true context. These and more.....

As ever it's never the weather, is it? It's the clothes we wear.

And we, as members of Industrial Society,  as Consumers (Consumer Rights?) are daily conditioned to wear the culture of abuse oh so comfortably, so comfortably in fact that sometimes we can't even see it.

The casually dropped piece of litter, a piece of plastic that will outlive thousands of generations, causing harm in the long, long, long term.

And Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk want to build colonies as their solution to this problem?

Utterly stupid.

...

Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's your gift to universe

Permaculture and Food-Oil Dependency.

This is a great documentary on how permaculture can effectively replace current food production practices founded on agro-chemicals (the same chemicals that make explosives!) It is the story of Cuba's recovery from near collapse in the late 80s as the USSR imploded. The Cuban food production was dependent on imports from the USSR for agro-chemicals, industrial farming tools and oil.

Here's the direct link...

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/the-power-of-community-how-cuba-survived-peak-oil/

The effect of this on Cuba was akin to a decline in oil as a resource, a post-peak oil situation, one we are facing now.

Watch this video and be inspired, be very inspired. Growing food in communities has also other 'side effects' as people trade or exchange food and food growing tips.




In Robert Blums book "Rogue State" he writes about the United Nations and how it is controlled by the security council. That is to say controlled by China, UK, USA, USSR and France. The Nuclear Powers....

One example he gives, which is related to food, goes as follows.

The United Nations General Assembly had been hosting conferences and discussions centered on drafting a legally binding resolution determining food as a fundamental human right.

This resolution would have protected all those who live as hunter gatherers, or who live on land they grow food on as well as made it the responsibility of all governments to ensure that their populations were properly fed and had access to food.

The vast majority of the General Assembly was in favour of this draft resolution and in 1986 held a vote on the issue.

The USA and UK rejected this and veto'ed the resolution, after first offering instead their amendment which read that it was a human right to buy food. This would have allowed Governments to force people of the land, as long as they were given food aid or cash to buy foods (GMO soy, US pesticide rice, hormone laden milk and meat products etc etc).

The General Assembly decided that this was not acceptable, and ditched the entire project on food as a human right. And at the same time called for a profound change to the way the Security Council Veto works, claiming correctly that it's very presence was anti-democratic and thus runs counter to the principles and aims of the UN Charter. Which is true.

Now very few people know about this story. The world-wide mainstream media made sure it never received any attention.

Another pertinent fact is that by law, under the UN Charter, all ratifying member states have to teach their school children about the UN, about the legal status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and how the UN works. The reason being that informed people can make informed choices. Human Rights awareness was seen as a tool to thwart future totalitarian tendencies.

Very few of the Western Governments actually include this in their school curricula to the degree that students emerge from schooling with an understanding of the UN and how it works. None of those Governments who are the permanent members on the UN Security Council include these subjects as part of the school curricula.

The reason behind this failing is that people, if they knew the details, could be mobilised to make the changes required, not in the UN per se, but by electing parties or individuals to National Governments that would then make the drive to push for the changes required in the UN to make it truly democratic, and thus functional as an international legal body with the power to disarm nuclear powers and uphold human rights.

Something the UN Security Council Permanent Members wish to avoid at all costs!






Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's your gift to universe